Dec 5, 2015

Obama's Poor Response to San Bernardino

from: source
Whenever terrorist attack a country, the people expect their leaders to rise up, denounce the attacks, and strongly support immediate action to ensure the same type of attack does not happen again.  This is just what people expect.  Even on local levels, people expect city governments, county governments, and state governments to do the same in the event of any terrorist attack.  Sadly, the Obama Administration has not taken this approach for the United States after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.  In fact, this administration has taken the exact opposite approach and appeared to be more supportive of the terrorist than of the American people.  It has left many wondering exactly where this administration's loyalties are now that the president no longer has to run for any office.

In Obama's book 'Dreams of My Father' Obama clearly says that if "political winds should shift in an ugly direction" against the Americans who appear to be Arab or Pakistani, he will "stand with them."  While one can appreciate this stand for American Arabs and Pakistanians within reason, this administration seems to take this stand to a level that borders on violating the Bill of Rights.

One day after the attacks, Obama's AG Lynch spoke to Muslim Americans and reassured them that they will prosecute "Anti-Muslim" speech - specifically "Anti-Muslim" speech that leads to violence (News).  Lynch further told Muslims to contact her if their children were bullied in school.  Now, everyone can agree that no speech should lead to violence - like nobody heard any speeches before the Boston Riots, right?  People would almost certainly agree that no children should be bullied in school (Bullied) But is such things as reporting a potential bomb in the form of a clock really bullying?  (Investigation) - why is the AG investigating people who reported a concern and took pro-active action to protect others?  It can do nothing but lead to more incidents like the one in San Bernardino where people refused to report what they thought was suspicious actions for fear of being called racist! (Fear)  People in the San Bernardino area saw what was going on in Texas, and they decided that rather than have their names plastered all over the news, possibly be investigated themselves, and even having to hire lawyers that they would just keep their mouths shut.  The message is clear - no longer report any suspicious activities if you believe it could be related to radical Muslims....it can be no other message to the American people.

Establishing that AG Lynch is going to protect Muslims in America is fine.  Establishing the limit of that protection is another thing entirely.  As stated above, is bullying going to be defined as reporting potential terrorist activities or suspected activity?  Now consider "Anti-Muslim" speech that leads to any potential violence.  Will the AG be pro-active in this area, and if so to what extent?  If a cartoon is drawn of Muhammad and Muslims complain, will the AG prosecute?  If a pastor or Christian says they believe Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, will the AG prosecute for "Anti-Muslim" speech?  Lynch's wide open statements, just one day after a terrorist attack by radical Muslims, is leaving many American's wondering exactly whose side this Administration is on now.

Within hours of the attack, President Obama stated it was too early to know exactly what happened - which after almost eight years in office he has apparently finally learned not to shoot his mouth off as President before he knows the facts.  However, he immediately said that this would not have happened if we had stricter gun laws (Gun Laws)  Now the President did not speak of striking back at the terrorist, and he did not give the type of supportive speech expected by Americans from their President.  Instead, he simply used this terrorist attack to stress how we need more gun laws.  This President seems to forget that California already has the strictest gun laws in the entire nation (CA Gun Laws), and he wants more!

So within hours of the terrorist attacks, the President calls for stricter gun laws.  Within a day of the attack, the AG - appointed by President Obama- informs Muslims that they will have extra protections afforded them that other Americans do not have while throwing out much of the Bill of Rights - after all, haven't we been told that the Bill of Rights protects other radical groups in the United States?  Does Lynch not think there are any other radical groups in the United States?  You'd better look again - here's a short list of groups that don't seem to concern Lynch in the least, but have a long history of "Anti" speeches and hate:

Ku Klux Klan 186 organizations with 52 websites
Neo-Nazi – 196 organizations with 89 websites
White Nationalist – 111 groups with 190 websites
Christian Identity – 39 groups with 37 websites
Neo-Confederation – 93 organizations with 25 websites
Black Separatist – 113 organizations with 40 websites
Anti-Gay  - 90 groups of hate with general hate speech 172 websites
Source

While Obama runs around pushing for more gun laws even when a state with the strictest gun laws failed to keep guns out of the hands of terrorist, his Attorney General apparently threatens to throw out the Bill of Rights and extend special protections, not afforded to many other Americans, to Muslim Americans.   Since this President's Administration does not seem supportive of the victims of a terrorist attack in California, the people there should know that the rest of the nation does not feel this way.  We support the people of San Bernardino, California, continue to pray for them, and extend to them that you are not alone - fifty other states stand firmly with you.